Wtf, this is the most distorted view of economics I have ever read. That's not even the logic behind labor laws, it's just some Keynesian shit described by someone who has never heard of Keynes. Did you just come up with this yourself?
Look, analyse any country in the world, which countries has a rich elite living all the conforts money can buy, while the rest of the country is in complete poverty eating dirt?
Yes, in capitalist countries we have a big gap between classes, but the only countries where you have this first configuration between elite and poverty is socialist countries. And talk about zero opportunity to escape financial situation.
Economic growth doesn't come from spending, it comes from technological advances, that then allow for cheaper production cost, which mean cheaper products, and a betterment in quality of life in general.
Despite the Keynesian model fiting like a glove to justify redistribution of wealth in a seemingly more reasonable way, that's not really why socialists want redistribution of wealth. They want it because they think it's unfair for some people to have more than others, everything should belong to the people.
But I say this gap is irrelevant, what matters is not how much better the people at the top are from the bottom, but how well off are people on the bottom in general. Also it's a mistake to think that a more equal society means everyone being richer. Again, you could compare socialist countries to any capitalist ones.
Just to hammer my point one more time, which seems better, being poor in America, a country known for being a symbol of capitalism, or being poor in Brazil, a country known for its mixed economy?
Capitalism is not about hoarding money in a vault to use as a swimming pool, it's about trading something you have for something you want more. The way you get rich in capitalism providing people with a service or product they really value more than they value their money.